Sickert's "Mrs. Barrett"

[Limehouse]

This is the black and white sketch from the blog that Chris Scott linked us to. This looks like a mutilated face to me, but it also looks decayed. I have rotated it 90 degrees, so that the figure is lying, in the same position, as MJK's on her bed. I don't know when this drawing was done, or whether or not it was influenced by Picasso and his bunch. The tip of the woman's nose is chopped off.

Now, alternatively, this could be a study of a decayed body, perhaps. Or an anatomy study. It certainly is a dead person.

However the positioning of the hair is very like that of MJK to me, and absolutely the position of the head is.



[ATTACH]1332[/ATTACH]

Sorry Celesta, but I cannot accept this person's arguments at all. That sketch appears to have been made by the lady blogger herself from something she sees in Sickert's painting "The Prostitute at Home'. She apparently sees mutilations in the face that I cannot see at all. Sure, the lady in the painting has a well-worn face, as you might expect of a prostitute of that class but mutilations? It seems to me to be pure fantasy.

She is taking a selection of Sickert's paintings and completely twisting their composition to fit a crank theory. I am sorry, I know we are not supposed to say such things about other people's views on this Forum but it does make me so mad. I mean, her interpretation of 'Two women on a Sofa' has them as dried up corpses! Honestly, has she seen these paintings for real? Does she know anything at all about Sickert and his work?

So, Sickert used some dark and murky topics for some of his paintings but so do MANY artists and of course not ALL of Sickert's work is concerned with these topics.

You might as well say that Conan-Doyle was a closet killer because he wrote about murder and mayhem. You might as well probe the mind of Bram Stoker for to find murderous intent for the creation of Dracula.

Look at the paintings of Picasso. The faces of his women were often chopped about, composed, decomposed and recomposed. It was his style.

Sickert was inspired by artists such as Degas (who painted many nudes) and Lautrec - whose topics included music halls, colourful ladies of the night - simply as a reaction against Victorian hypocrisy. He was showing the world what was really out there.

Even if there were 'secrets' painted into his work, maybe like us, he was simply searching for an answer.

[Stephen Thomas]

I've seen the above painting, but I've always associated "Blackmail or Mrs. Barrett" as the painting of "Mary Kelly" according to Stephen Knight. Anyway, has anyone seen or have a jpeg of "Blackmail"? It's the one painting of Sickert's I can't find on the net.

This is the picture

[Limehouse]

Hello, Limehouse. While I do agree with the dark side of Victorian novelists, or Victorians themselves for that matter, I disagree with the above assertion. If I said I saw six Martians and a pink computer in "Mrs. B", I don't buy into the subjectivity that says my interpretation is just as valid as the rest of 'em. Proof must have something to do with it. And as I suggested above, I was happy that someone else had seen just what I saw. And, while not 100%, to me that seems like some kind of proof.

What do you make of the alternative title of BLACKMAIL?

Hi Paul,

Of course, I agree, there has to be some sense of proportion and logic when debating what can be interpreted (although, as some people can see a lobster and others the act of murder, it just goes to show what the human eye and mind really can trick one into thinking) but in no way can anything 'seen' in a Sickert painting be held up as proof that he was the murderer.

What do I make of the alternative title? Well, the lady in the forefront of the picture looks to be well-dressed and there is, to me, a triumphant glint in her eye.

The spread legs you can see in the reflection, drevealed themselves to me on closer inspection. Between those legs seems to be a person.

Perhaps the title refers to something witnessed by the triumphant 'Mrs Barrett'. Perhaps she (or whoever she really represents) witnessed an infidelity that resulted in blackmail. It may well refer to a famous blackmail case of the time.

It is interesting that the 'Mrs Barrett' looks nothing like the lady in the "Red Blouse' painting.

Regards

Limehouse

[Celesta]

LH,

I don't see a lot of similarities to Eddowes' mutilations either. I wasn't saying Sickert was the Ripper, just that he seemed very interested in the Ripper and that that is reflected in his work.

There is another 'Blackmail', that I came across, of a woman, in a pink blouse that more closely resembles the one in the painting posted at the beginning of this thread. It's called "Venetian Woman," and came up when I googled the title "Blackmail."





Here is the link to the site from which I extracted the above:

http://cybermuse.gallery.ca/cybermuse/search/artwork_e.jsp?mkey=3873

[paul emmett]

Of course, I agree, there has to be some sense of proportion and logic when debating what can be interpreted (although, as some people can see a lobster and others the act of murder, it just goes to show what the human eye and mind really can trick one into thinking) but in no way can anything 'seen' in a Sickert painting be held up as proof that he was the murderer.

What do I make of the alternative title? Well, the lady in the forefront of the picture looks to be well-dressed and there is, to me, a triumphant glint in her eye.

The spread legs you can see in the reflection, drevealed themselves to me on closer inspection. Between those legs seems to be a person.

Perhaps the title refers to something witnessed by the triumphant 'Mrs Barrett'. Perhaps she (or whoever she really represents) witnessed an infidelity that resulted in blackmail. It may well refer to a famous blackmail case of the time.

It is interesting that the 'Mrs Barrett' looks nothing like the lady in the "Red Blouse' painting.

I agree. I also agree with your point that the sketch of MJK must have been done by the person on the website; I never saw it before. And, as my original disclaimer noted, I too am not a Sickert proponent, but there still is something curious here.

[paul emmett]

If you had read, it is actually the police sketch of MJK from the crime scene

Hello, Sarah. Is this true?

[Limehouse]

Hi Celesta,

I don't think Sickert did the sketch at all. It seems to be a sketch done by the blogger of the multilations she thinks she can see in the painting beside the sketch. When you look at it, especially when it is rotated as you have done, it does look like the scene of crime mutilations of Kelly - but that's because of what the sketch-drawer has 'seen' in the painting.

I agree, Sickert was interested in the murders, and certainly did use them as a topic (the re-named painting Jack the Ripper's Bedroom) but then so did the author of the original novel The Lodger (can't remember the author's name - shameful of me!).

Regards

LH

[Limehouse]

Hello, Sarah. Is this true?

Hi all,

OK, so this is a police sketch of the crime scene. The blogger thinks the mutilations look like the face of the lady in the painting "The Prostitute at Home' (she has placed them side by side). How? I just cannot see it!

It is a rather lovely painting. There is nothing seedy or nasty about it. To me, it's a sensitive portrait of a girl with a rather careworn face. What is Sickert trying to tell us about this? Is he giving us a glimpse of the private life of someone whose body has been so publically used? Is there an admiring tenderness about the scene? Or is there murder and mayhem behind the face?

[Celesta]

Hi LH,

Yes, it was not immediately clear to me that the sketch was not by Sickert. Thank you, LH. I read the short passage above the sketch but didn't realize that the blogger had posted an actual Kelly sketch, or whatever it is. I knew it did not look like Sickert's style!

I did post another painting that came up when I googlied "Blackmail."

[paul emmett]

OK, so this is a police sketch of the crime scene.




It is a rather lovely painting. There is nothing seedy or nasty about it. To me, it's a sensitive portrait of a girl with a rather careworn face. What is Sickert trying to tell us about this? Is he giving us a glimpse of the private life of someone whose body has been so publically used? Is there an admiring tenderness about the scene? Or is there murder and mayhem behind the face?

Hello, all.

I asked this question of Sarah because I had never seen this pic of MJK. I thought you were right, Limehouse, when you said it had been done by the blogger. Now YOU'RE saying it's a police sketch?

As far as the painting itself, PUTANA A CASA, I find the woman MOST frightening. Her face looks HOUSE OF WAXish--burnt, decayed, . . . something. Espescially her right distorted eye. So, I know we're back to that subjectivity again, but I'm going with murder and mayhem.

[Dan Norder]

For the record, that drawing of a mutilated Mary Kelly is not by Walter Sickert, is not a police sketch, and was not created by the blogger. It's a modern artist's interpretation and has been around for several years.

[paul emmett]

Thanks, Dan.

Do you know who and when?

[Limehouse]

Hi all,

There seems to be a lot of confusion over the real titles of some of these paintings! If we go back to the very first painting posted, apparently called Mrs Barrett, with the alternative title Blackmail, I have given an interpretation of what the possible motives of the painting are, based on Paul's question to me.

The rather nice portrait of the lady in the pink blouse posted by Celesta seems to be the same lady. Unlike the first painting, in which I can detect a hint of triumph in her glance, this is a relaxed and comfortable sitting, with no hint of malice or murder evidentI

The rather sweet but dark-looking portrait of a lady/girl in a hat looks very like the style of Lautrec.

The sketch, taken from the blog, seems to be a crime scene sketch made by a police artist of the Kelly murder. It does not resemble any Sickert painting that I have seen.

Perhaps it would be interesting to study the pre-murders paintings of Sickert to see what can be detected? I am quite familiar with his work, but will use the link provided by a previous poster to examine his work closely.

Finally, I wonder if many people have seen Sickert's work in a gallery, placed side by side with contemproary works of the time? I saw his work alongside other Victorian painters and sketchers of nudes and honestly, beside some of them, Sickert looked positively coy.

His work really does take on a different hue when you see it for real.

[Celesta]

It looks like the "modern artist" got the boards in the headboard going the wrong way!

Thanks, Dan, for the info.

[paul emmett]

Perhaps it would be interesting to study the pre-murders paintings of Sickert to see what can be detected? I am quite familiar with his work, but will use the link provided by a previous poster to examine his work closely.

Sickert looked positively coy.

I love the "coy." And the suggestion is a good one. I find it all worth a closer look. And Sickert himself is interesting. Wasn't it Thomas Hardy who loved to watch hangings?

Have good days.

"What a pretty necklace I gave her"